A federal appeals court has dealt a significant blow to the Trump administration’s attempt to use a centuries-old wartime law to fast-track the deportation of Venezuelan migrants. In a 2-1 ruling issued Tuesday, a panel of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals blocked the administration’s use of the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to remove alleged members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua, finding that the situation did not meet the statute’s requirement of an “invasion” or “predatory incursion.”
The decision grants a preliminary injunction for migrants detained in Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi who challenged the removals. While the government can still pursue deportations under other immigration laws, it may not rely on the Alien Enemies Act, which was written in the 18th century to deal with hostile foreign forces during wartime.
Judge Leslie Southwick, appointed by President George W. Bush, wrote the majority opinion, joined in part by Judge Irma Carrillo Ramirez, a Biden appointee. They rejected the administration’s argument that the presence of Tren de Aragua members constituted an incursion akin to a military action. “TdA was not the kind of organized force or engaged in the kind of actions necessary to constitute an invasion or predatory incursion,” Southwick wrote.
The court emphasized that immigration, even when encouraged by another country, does not fit the statute’s wartime definitions. “A country’s encouraging its residents and citizens to enter this country illegally is not the modern-day equivalent of sending an armed, organized force to occupy, to disrupt, or to otherwise harm the United States,” the ruling stated.
The Alien Enemies Act permits the president to detain or deport citizens of a hostile nation during declared war or when facing an invasion. It has historically been invoked in times of open conflict, such as the War of 1812 and the World Wars. The Trump administration argued that Tren de Aragua was operating under the direction of Venezuela’s government and that mass migration itself was a form of incursion. The panel found no evidence to support this claim.
Earlier this year, the administration deported hundreds of migrants accused of TdA ties, sending many to Venezuela and others to El Salvador’s CECOT supermax prison. A CBS News investigation reported that “many migrants sent to El Salvador didn’t have criminal records,” raising questions about the criteria used for deportations. In July, a number of deportees were returned to Venezuela as part of a prisoner swap.
Civil rights groups, led by the American Civil Liberties Union, challenged the policy as an abuse of executive power and a violation of due process. Lee Gelernt, who argued the case for the ACLU, welcomed the decision. He said the Trump administration’s “use of a wartime statute during peacetime to regulate immigration was rightly shut down by the court.” He added that the ruling was “a critically important decision reining in the administration’s view that it can simply declare an emergency without any oversight by the courts.”
The case had already reached the U.S. Supreme Court earlier in the year. In April, the high court temporarily blocked removals, citing concerns that migrants had been given just 24 hours’ notice before deportation. The administration later revised its policy to provide seven days’ notice. The Fifth Circuit suggested that might be adequate but returned the issue to the lower court for further review. Judge Ramirez expressed doubt, noting she did not believe seven days was enough time for due process.
Judge Andrew Oldham, a Trump appointee, dissented from Tuesday’s ruling. He argued that presidents have long been granted broad powers under the Alien Enemies Act and criticized the majority for limiting executive authority. “For 227 years, every President of every political party has enjoyed the same broad powers to repel threats to our Nation under the Alien Enemies Act (‘AEA’). And from the dawn of our Nation until President Trump took office a second time, courts have never second-guessed the President’s invocation of that Act. Not once,” he wrote. “For President Trump, however, the rules are different.”
The ruling marks a major setback for Trump’s broader strategy of using emergency declarations and wartime authorities to expand presidential power over immigration enforcement. Critics have described the deportation program as an effort to intimidate immigrant communities and bypass established immigration law.
The Fifth Circuit’s decision underscores that, even in a time of heightened political rhetoric about border security, the courts are unwilling to equate migration with military invasion. For now, the injunction ensures that migrants detained in the Fifth Circuit cannot be deported under the Alien Enemies Act while the case continues. Further appeals are likely, with the administration expected to bring the case back to the Supreme Court.
COMMENTS